| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 113/07 |
| Determination date | 20 April 2007 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | S King ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kiely v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant sought reimbursement for lost tie pin - Collective employment agreement stated employees covered for loss of personal effects necessary or reasonable for them to carry - Respondent declined claim as considered value of pin excessive and not reasonable for applicant to carry it - Submitted value of item inherent consideration in determining whether reasonable - Grooming guide permitted simple gold tie pin - Whether simple" meant not expensive - Applicant claimed referred to design, not value - Respondent required slide to be gold, must be taken to expect solid gold - No basis to interpret stipulation of gold to refer only to lower grade or inexpensive items - Respondent must have expected tie pins would possibly be expensive for generally the very nature of gold items - Reasonable for applicant to carry tie pin he claimed cover for - Applicant entitled to cover from respondent - Loss of effects clause in employment agreement not regarded as common law insurance contract, merely term of employment relationship - Flight attendant" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 113_07.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |